Here’s the question: If the maximum “safe” level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million, but today’s level is ALREADY 385 ppm, is it “good enough” to simply reduce the rate at which we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Simply put, is any policy option limited to a ‘reduction in the rate of increase’ merely a re-arranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Or, as seems logical, must we reverse direction and start REMOVING CO2 from the atmosphere as rapidly as possible?  Can we reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by at least 10% fast enough to prevent serious global climate disruption?  Attempting anything less would seem to be akin to voting for a disastrous future.

In 2007, we were already at at CO2 level of 383 ppm. So we have known of this overshoot for at least two years. We have, however, yet to hear any serious talk of changing direction. Nor is there any action to remove CO2 from the atmosphere on a global scale in order to attempt to preserve a semblance of life as we have know it. History shows that overshooting limits and carrying capacities inevitably has dire results: die offs and collapses. Is this what we want for our future?

Is biochar, the subject of this note, one way to reverse direction, make the soils healthier and more productive, as well as make a profit with increased crop yields? A profit driven approach to removing CO2 from the atmosphere seems the most likely to succeed. How would we engineer this on a global scale to achieve the results we desire in the required time frame?

If you are unfamiliar with Biochar / Biocarbon / Terra Preta, you can start learning about it in the Biochar Notes.

Biochar Notes: An Introduction to Biochar

See Elizabeth Kolber’s essay on James Hansen in the June 29th issue of The New Yorker magazine.

And Bill McKibben’s article in the Dec. 28th, 2007 Washington Post:

Remember This: 350 Parts Per Million

The Country at Stake With Reckless Leadership

By Farooq Hassan
Law & Int’l Affairs Professor — Harvard

I have been in Cairo where I had arrived to talk to the Arab intellectuals of strategic and Islamic affairs. Regrettably then on May 27, the third major terrorist attack in Lahore occurred.

Recent hostilities in the country concerning the war events in Swat have already initiated a debate in many influential media quarters if Pakistan could survive this newly created reality, in which serious questions about the policies and decisions of the Zardari government were involved.
There has been a debate evoked around the survival of the country, which is of tremendous significance for the entire Muslim world as was evidenced by my live dialogue for IslamOnline.net that very day of Lahore bombing attack.

Such an inquiry, not merely semantically, but in terms of fundamental realities of contemporary transnational political facts, entails two connected but separate and clearly distinct matters.

Please read the full essay here.

Islam: Environmental Protection

Professor Dr. Farooq Hassan∗
President Pakistan Ecology Council

(Chairman’s Address to the World Civic Forum, Seoul, Korea, 6 May, 2009)

I am grateful to be invited to give this year’s address on the theme of climate control and to chair the distinguished panel dealing with the topic of Climate control. I would specifically analyze and discuss the highly important subject of Islam and protection of the environment. As Chairman of the Pakistan’s Ecology Council and having served on Environmental Committee of the Pakistan Bar as well, I am pleased to be here at this historical Conference of the World Civic Forum 2009; the venue for this year’s World Forum for making our planet a better place to live being Seoul, Korea where many events dealing with this fundamentally vital subject are being discussed during this Forum’s deliberations from 5th to 8th May, 2009.

Today’s talk is even more significant since it deals with the survival of the human race. My interest in this subject is not new. Let me at the outset take a brief moment of your time to submit to you that as far back as 1975, that is thirty years ago, I was elected amongst a handful of Third World delegates to the First International Ecology Congress in Vienna, in which I presented my views on a subject which was in some ways similar to the one today but without reference to the available Islamic conceptions about it. [1]

Continue Reading »

What with the recent news about flawed electronic voting machines and outright vote manipulation, the topic of voting machines is surfacing again. I’d like to throw in my two cents.

Rather than pushing for more oversight, printed receipts, and more inspection of software (the expensive solution), I’ve maintained for a while that there’s an alternative that’s both more transparent, and a lot less expensive. Call it a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Voting machines (RAIV), analogous to RAIDed disk drives.

In almost all aspects of voting, there are at least two observers (signing in, ballot counting, recounts, etc.). The only place without observation, of course, is in the voting booth itself. This was not a problem in the days of paper ballots, or even of mechanical lever machines (hard to hack). But in the days of electronic voting machines, it’s time to look at the machines themselves.

Completely trustworthy software has never been achieved, and approaching it is incredibly expensive. The alternative, I suggest, is twofold:
1. optically scanned paper ballots (a true audit trail that supports manual recounts)
2. count each ballot at least twice, using at least two different machines!
If the tallies don’t match, it’s time for a manual recount.

If the voting machines are developed, supplied, and overseen by different organizations, that provides for a pretty strong check and balance. With the cost of a scanner and a laptop costing well under $1000 these days, and plenty of universities itching to develop open source voting software (it’s amazing what a small grant will fund), the cost of a single Diebold machine would more than cover multiple counting systems at a polling place - say one each from the local election board, local party offices, and an election watch organization - using different hardware, operating systems, and software.

Note that NASA uses this model for flight control software on the Space Shuttle. Five machines run mission critical software - four from one vendor, one from a completely different vendor, running independently developed software. The machines vote, and if there’s a disagreement, alarms and sirens sound.

It was with some reservation that I attended an Organizing for America event to discuss President Obama’s Economic Recovery Plan. A week or so ago, Zephyr Teachout wrote Organizing for America Will, and Should, Fail which raised some very important issues about the direction Organizing for America needs to be heading if it is going to be successful. I’ve discussed the article with friends here in Connecticut and I wondered how the discussion would go today in New Haven.

I am pleased to say that it was much better than I feared it might be based on Zephyr’s article. Some of this is because people organizing the meeting wanted it to be much more than a call to lobby legislators, some of it is because they invited Lou Mangini, a Congressional Aide for Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, to speak about the recovery plan, and some of it was simply because it was a good group of energetic volunteers.

We started with a detailed overview of the Economic Recovery Plan. Mr. Mangini noted that economic stimulus plans have been a frequent tool of Congress during recessions. He explained where things are in the process of getting the plan passed and what it might look like as it gets implemented. He expressed gratification to see so many people gather to discuss an urgent legislative issue on a Saturday afternoon.

We then broke into small groups to discuss aspects that we were interested in. I joined a group talking about local issues around the plan and how it relates to grassroots organizing.

There were three key areas that we focused on. The first was getting it passed. Since it seems like there is strong support of the plan by the Connecticut delegation to Washington, we discussed contacting friends in states where the Senators and Representatives may not be as supportive. This does not mean supporting the plan as it is. There continues to be pressure to change the plan and we need to keep up the pressure to make sure that any changes will make the plan as effective as possible.

Beyond that, the issue of what projects will get funded needs key focus. Unlike other economic plans where specific projects are earmarked, this plan calls for the state and local governments to determine which plans will most effectively reach the goals of the stimulus package.

It is unclear exactly how many ‘shovel ready’ projects are waiting to be done with out the necessary funding to complete them. By ‘shovel ready’, what is meant is projects that have been designed and have the necessary permits. Some of the best projects may, in fact not be ‘shovel ready’, and there are separate issues about how to get such plans ‘shovel ready’ as quickly as possible.

It is also unclear exactly how much money will be made available to states for various projects. However, it is reasonable to assume that there are probably twice as many ‘shovel ready’ projects on the shelves waiting to be funded as there will be funding for.

So, who will decide what projects will be funded? This will go through typical existing agencies like councils of economic development or state transportation agencies. These agencies are not always as transparent as people would like, and may not always chose those projects that will be most effective in stimulating the economy.

Perhaps, if various projects can be listed online where people can discuss the pros and cons of each project, we will end up with better projects being funded.

Once these projects are selected, there will also need to be better transparency and oversight to make sure that they are done in as efficient and cost effective manner as possible.

Can volunteers from Organizing for America and other groups gather and discuss projects that would be most beneficial for our country? Can they make these discussions available online so everyone can participate?

Such discussions could help everyone in Organizing for America be part of the change that they worked so hard for during the election, and might, just might, address the concerns that Zephyr expressed, better than any one imaged was possible.

So, what projects are under consideration for funding where you are?

By: DR FAROOQ HASSAN

Dr. Hassan has a new essay in The Nation:

Every morning at my Harvard’s library desk I go through press reports on Pakistan. I regret to say that no country in the World has as bad things written about it as Pakistan does. While some of these critiques, ridicules or even sarcasm could be arguably attributed to antagonism that may conceivably exist against an Islamic country which has the nuclear capacity, I am afraid still a lot of what is said about Pakistan is usually true.

I cannot find any parallel in the contemporary history where a country has so little to speak up about itself as Pakistan. Dignity or honour has ceased to have any meaning in Pakistan’s public life. Theoretically none of these notions arguably even exist since in Pakistan almost everything that is publicly noticeable exhibits an alarming lack of even common decency or public morality.

Be it the utterly fake and discernible commitment to rule of law and constitutional supremacy or any other matter, the government is least bothered to take any noticeable action which could be morally correct. I am personally sick of hearing this comment that is often given by the President or the Prime Minister that “this or that matter will be decided by the parliament” when the said institution is seemingly as powerless, moribund and inactive as it was during the heyday of military adventures in this country.

Please read the essay in full.

The writer is a barrister at law (UK), attorney at law (US), senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and professor at Harvard University.

Author: Michael D. McDonald, Dr.P.H.

Will the remnants of 20th Century national security mechanisms derail our own recovery and jeopardize the health, well-being and prosperity of Americans by consuming our societal attention and resources around the potential or actual next large terrorist attack, while other greater threats to our society and to the world continue to go unaddressed? Some argue, perhaps justifiably, that if our National Security apparatus operates again as it did in the years following the Al Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11/2001, it may irreversibly alter the fabric or our civil society, our superpower status internationally, and undermine our position of economic and military leadership in the world during the 21st Century.

Will our nation, by continuing to operate under an architecture for its national security infrastructures architected in the 20th Century forever be protecting Americans with strategies, tools and methodologies appropriate designed to fight its last war. Will our society blindly cripple its broader socio-ecological fabric while all of its attention and resources are spent on the obvious threats from adversaries, near-term short-cycle economic downturn, and periodic natural disasters? If so, is it not probable that we will miss the opportunity to become an important part of global, collaborative networks in addressing the opportunities and dangers of economic long-wave phenomenon, climate change, other aspects of global change and novel 21st Century challenges in the window of opportunity we have to successfully address these concerns? Is there a high likelihood that our nation might miss its critical window of opportunity to address our emerging mission critical sustainable security gaps? If so, how can American society now engage a significant transformation toward an infrastructure that uses our most advanced scientific and technological resources to focus and sustain our national security initiatives on our society’s highest priority emerging challenges and opportunities.

We must now face the discomforting question of whether the U.S. government and American society in the years and decades ahead will be able to transform itself successfully if the major challenges to our society are less likely to come from terrorism alone or threats to our sovereignty, but from collapses in local, regional, and global socio-ecological carrying capacities. For example, It is argued here that a U.S. National Sustainable Security Infrastructure discourse must now be engaged at the highest levels of the U.S. government, with input from the rest of American society, to ensure that this threat to American society does not impact us without a process that can anticipate, cushion and protect our society from such an impact that could kill not a few thousand people, as in the 9/11 attacks or Hurricane Katrina, but potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans.
Continue Reading »

By: DR FAROOQ HASSAN –

Dr. Hassan has published an essay of interest on the Mumbai massacre and Pakistan.

The mental shock on seeing the Mumbai massacre on the TV in my hotel room in Dubai was both abrupt and intense. I left soon thereafter as I was en route to performing the Hajj; but the thought of what future may hold for Pakistan gave rise to an uncomfortable sensation. I am now at Harvard where I have had more time to reflect and ponder over such matters.

The terrible state of things that currently surround Pakistan are patently visible to anyone who cares to realise the impact of this brutality. The dangers of indiscriminate blame are only too easy. One hopes that visionary wisdom and statesmanship will rule, but we know how hard that can be. The cold-blooded ferocity demonstrated in Mumbai is equally to be found elsewhere in the world - the West is far from immune; but the Muslims seem to be somehow exceptionally unfortunate to be the made focus of suspicion and murmur almost any time something erupts with a bang.

Please read the full essay here.

The writer is an attorney-at-law (US), barrister-at-law (UK), senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and Professor at Harvard University.

Author: Aldon Hynes

In 2001, Robert Putnam published a seminal book on the decline of civic engagement. Entitled Bowling Alone, it traced the decline in participation in a wide range of community organizations, from voting and church attendance to bowling leagues. The election of Barack Obama with massive citizen involvement and the hope for more involvement during his administration may end up being viewed as a key turning point returning our country to greater civic engagement. However, it is useful to look at issues that may affect such involvement.

My own re-energized community involvement started with Gov. Dean’s 2004 Presidential bid. We held parties in our homes, met in local restaurants and traveled the state and beyond. Afterwards, Kim ran for State Representative and we started getting involved with the local political machinery. We were not always welcome.

Perhaps some of this is understandable. People who have been toiling away in various organizations when no one else seemed interested may be distrustful of new people with new ideas and new enthusiasm. They may be dubious that this new energy goes beyond one or two new people. After years of trying to bring in new people, they may be reluctant to reach out, yet again, for new activists.

Yet many that became involved in Gov. Dean’s 2004 Presidential bid have remained involved. They have played important roles in President-Elect Obama’s campaign. They have worked on other campaigns and run for office themselves.

Much of this can be attributed to the use of the social media tools on the Internet to help connect people. However, people have asked, can this ePolitics energy be transformed into good eGovernance? Will people that have been involved via the Internet in national campaigns become involved face to face on local issues? The Obama transition team is working hard to help facilitate this by naming the day before the inauguration, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 2009, a National Day of Service.

Local organizations would be wise to actively reach out to Obama inspired volunteers. Yet I fear that the same reluctance that local political organizations showed to newly energized political activists after the 2004 election may happen with civic organizations this time.

I have run into a little bit of this myself as I have attempted to become involved in the technology planning committee in our school district and to encourage others to participate.

The State of Connecticut requires each school district to prepare three-year technology plans and every school district in the state should be embarked on that effort right now. It would seem as if all of the energy and knowledge about technology that people gathered from the 2008 elections could be used to move this process forward. Yet it is hard to find out how to get involved.

In the current process, last summer each superintendent was contacted by the Commissioner of Education about the new technology plans. There have been meetings in each of the Regional Education Service Centers to talk about the plan, and they were well attended. However, as best as I can tell, this has done little to increase community involvement or sharing of ideas between committees.

A key objective that is often talked about in education is whether or not standardized test scores are increasing. While this is a laudable goal, it is also a bit short sighted. Yes, higher scores on standardized tests are a good thing, but they are but one result of other factors. Independent of standardized test scores, we need to look at students’ abilities to innovate creatively and cooperatively. Technology could help in this area, but there are other important factors. One of the most important factors is the level of parental involvement. Discussions with parents about how technology can be used to facilitate education might even be more important than the technology itself.

So, what is your involvement in your school district? If you live in Connecticut, are you aware of the technology planning process going on right now? Are you aware of the school budgets being considered right now? Are you going to be involved in the National Day of Service? If so, what projects are you going to work on?

I do hope that we are at a turning point in civic engagement. I do hope that those who have been so involved for so long will welcome the newly engaged. I do hope that they will see this as a great time to reach out, yet again, to the broader community and help rebuild our civic infrastructure.

By DR FAROOQ HASSAN
November 18, 2008

Dr. Hassan’s latest opinion piece has been published here.

Tyranny of good intentions

Any contemporary thinker of any significance cannot be in any doubt on the three salient aspects of the evolving political scenario in Pakistan, viz: (1) the manifest political operations through which Zardari has entered the portals of absolute power, (2) the apparently harmful response that Nawaz Sharif has exhibited thus far to the continuity of the Musharraf brand of governmental retention of power in presidency to the exclusion of Parliament, and (3) resultantly the bleak future of the country because of the lack of Opposition to the government which is the sine qua non of parliamentary systems.

People of Pakistan invariably make the right decisions for the ultimate betterment of the country. Time and again this phenomenon has been established. They demonstrated this public conception of the General Will, as Rousseau called it, in 1947, 1970 or, as most recently, in 2008. Did we not witness the same phenomenon again when the people by their vote demanded for a change on February 18? Did they not vote for Musharraf’s ouster and affirmatively condemn his consistent acts of usurpation since 1999? Was it not tantamount to a mandate for the restoration of the Musharraf-purged judiciary? We cannot simply forget that but for that “NO” that came from one CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry on March 9, 2007, all these present rulers and many in the Parliament would still be sitting in foreign lands as exiles or absolute nobodies within the country itself?

Please read all of Tyranny of good intentions here.